Interview with Paul Handley

Over the coming months, New Mandala will continue to publish a series of interviews with academics, activists and writers who contribute to major debates in mainland Southeast Asian Studies. These interviews are designed to probe the experiences, arguments and ideas that have helped shape the field.

The fifth in New Mandala’s series of discussions with prominent personalities is with author and journalist Paul Handley.

Nicholas Farrelly:Paul, thanks for taking the time to do an interview with New Mandala. Most of our readers know you as the author of The King Never Smiles: A Biography of Thailand’s Bhumibol Adulyadej but, of course, you were writing about Thailand for years before the book was published. Can you tell us about how you first came to Thailand? What brought you to the country?

Paul Handley: I originally went to Asia after graduating from university (American U. in Washington DC, International Studies) to study Chinese. After three years doing that in Taiwan, I got a job with a Hong Kong-based oil industry magazine that sent me to … Indonesia. It turned out to be a great move. After a few years there I got some opportunities to work for Far Eastern Economic Review and, when the Suharto regime tossed me out in 1986 for writing about the sons’ business, FEER gave me a full time job in Hong Kong, for which I am eternally grateful (to the old FEER regime, Derek Davies, Philip Bowring et al.).

After a while in Hong Kong I pitched for a posting to Taiwan or Korea and they sent me to Bangkok. Once again, not my choice but a great move anyway. My second day there I walked from Wireless to Sukhumvit 49 in 1-2 feet of floodwater. Loved it ever since.

Nicholas Farrelly:For a bit of history, I’m sure that many of our readers will be interested to hear of some of the big stories that you wrote during your early years as a journalist in Thailand. What were some of the highlights of that work?

Paul Handley: I arrived in Thailand in September 1987, just as the Southeast Asian economies were beginning to take off, Thailand in the forefront. It was a great education in economics – even moreso when, finally, the bust came 10 years later.

There were so many stories, about new businesses, about the strains of growth on not only economic management but on the democratic process, conflicts of the golf courses-vs-the-environment kind, the new consumerism sweeping into the countryside. So much was about the nexus of politics and capital, many stories were about the conflicts. I got into writing about mega-projects – remember the traffic back then, pre-skytrain? – and how unmanageable they were in a wild democracy like Thailand. I think the earliest articles were about the battle over the goodies between Banharn and Samak, two of the sleaziest people you can imagine. Now I see they are back. Hmm, plus ca change … Eventually I turned all the knowledge about the projects into a big feature for Institutional Investor and a paper for the Asia Research Center at Murdoch University (great people there!), both using examples of privatised infrastructure from Pakistan and India to China to show why the projects were not working and would collapse financially. Which they did. I still think it is one of the major features, but little understood, of the politics and heady financial zeitgeist of the Asian boom.

Some of the heaviest stories I covered were of the 1991 coup and its denouement in the May 1992 bloodshed. Because there was a lot of shadow play going on with the palace, which I did not understand, it planted the seed in my mind for my book.

Nicholas Farrelly:So when did you actually decide to write a biography of King Bhumibol? What influence did your years in Thailand have on the book?

Paul Handley: I quit FEER in 1994 and was thinking about leaving Thailand. I thought I would like to write a long magazine-type article about the monarchy, which I had become much more aware of in politics and in national culture after so many years there. I started to research, about monarchies as a modern political institution, and about this one, and the story got more and more interesting. Eventually I got so deep I was – my critics will cheer this admission – pretty well in over my head. So it took a long time and a few fundamental restarts to sort out the whole thing.

Nicholas Farrelly:Since its release in 2006, the book has obviously generated a huge amount of interest. Many people have come out to support your argument and its importance. On New Mandala alone, the book has provoked hundreds of comments. Of course, many others have criticised your research and tried to highlight what they see as your “agenda”. What was your own motivation for writing the book? When you started, did you ever expect the sort of reaction that it has received?

Paul Handley: You know, I have been asked by all types of people, from a very canny top Thai diplomat to academics who one would think would know better, “Why did you write the book?” The answer is, in truth, why hasn’t someone done this before me? Here you have the world’s longest-serving living head of state, a king more adored by his people than any other, a monarchy styled on what I call a Buddhist theocracy, and so on. And no one has ever sat down and written about the secret of his success, his philosophy, his approach to the job, his family (as dysfunctional as any royalty), his contribution to the world, his kingship as one in the rarefied world of sovereign monarchs. A popular and respected king for six decades. What is a more obvious subject that that? I admit I have never been enamoured by monarchy, but there was no agenda, and I altered my view of King Bhumibol several times during the process of researching the book.

As for the reaction, there has been little that I did not expect. The only surprise was the confluence of events – the book finally being completed and ready for publishing at the same time Thaksin was being pushed from power by the yellow-shirted masses, all on the 60th anniversary of Bhumibol’s reign.

Nicholas Farrelly:According to the publisher’s description of The King Never Smiles, it is “an extensively researched, factual account of the king’s youth and personal development, ascent to the throne, skilful political manoeuvrings, and attempt to shape Thailand as a Buddhist kingdom”. I think it would be helpful if you told us more precisely about how you researched the book. What was your methodology?

Paul Handley: I’m a journalist, not a historian, and I went at it a little ass-backwards, digging through popular accounts and histories before I got into the heavy stuff written, some of it just being written at the time, by real historians. I went through a lot of old newspapers and magazines, Thai and foreign, a lot of official publications, commemorative books, anything I could find that mentioned the royals – in libraries, in the old book and magazine stalls in Chatuchak, in people’s homes. I studied the pictures and the dates, and put together a timeline that I realized after a while did not always really match the official accounts. For instance, there are a lot of official palace accounts which say the king began building dams, or raising Tilapia, or such things at a certain date. And then you would find a picture and caption in a magazine that had it five years earlier. Some were benign, but some of the discrepancies had real meaning. For that reason there is a perhaps inordinate emphasis on dates in the book, but a lot was to make points. Bhumibol’s image is always working, that his tour to the US and Europe in 1960 was all work, and then you find out that he spent most of the time vacationing. Nothing wrong with that, it is just that in the official view he never took vacations.

That deconstruction-reconstruction process took me a long time, and then I worked on the more dense historical records of the time, and then the greater history and culture of Thailand and the Thai monarchy which helped shape a perspective. And of course talking to anyone I could in Thailand, admittedly many times asking people questions about the monarchy under the cover of interviews on entirely different subjects. But I could not tell many people I was doing such a book.

And I indulged myself in the royal culture when and how I could – going to his appearances and ceremonies when possible, listening to his music, going to art exhibits with his paintings, whatever I could to get a feel. I still could have done a lot more, but eventually you have to stop and write.

Nicholas Farrelly:What efforts did you make to interview King Bhumibol and other members of the palace? How were any approaches received?

Paul Handley: This is a clear shortcoming of the book. Seeing the skittish reaction to my project from a number of Thais – including a few academics known to your readers – made me conclude that I could not approach anyone in the palace until the very end. But by the time I got a solid draft together and a publisher signed on, I decided that it would be useless and possibly interfere with getting the book out. The king and the palace are extremely reticent about interviews, and would have demanded to see the book as a condition of even considering whether to see me. I decided, after consulting my publisher and several Thai experts, that there was no chance of success and a great chance that the palace/government would do whatever it could to block the book. As they did.

Nicholas Farrelly:One of major criticisms of the book is that it relies on “gossip” and “rumour”. How do you respond to this?

Paul Handley: The palace lives on gossip and rumor, at least that which benefits it. For instance, in the early 1990s there were widespread stories that the king drove around incognito to experience the hell of Bangkok’s traffic. Everyone heard the stories, everyone believed them – that the king was suffering just like they were. No one I met ever had first-hand information on this, it was just rumor. Rumor that benefitted the monarchy. There are countless examples like this which shape the king’s image, and image is crucial.

The critics focus though on the negative rumors that I repeat. Most of these are rumors that either I believe to be true, or that are probably not true but nevertheless have substantial impact on the image of the throne and the royal family. Positive or negative, what people believe about the king, whom they adore so, and about his family, with whom they are less enamored, is essential to the success and problems of his reign.

One other class of rumor I got into was very speculative, I admit – on the king’s love life. But I believe that this issue is also essential to his image and his personality, especially in a place like Thailand where philandering is a hobby, mia nois are family, and where previous kings Mongkut and Chulalongkorn have been, well, unrestrained with women. One has to examine all of the facets of his image to see if they hold up in reality, and one facet is Bhumibol as a faithful family man. I also maintain that his only having one son was a fateful decision contrary to the need of the dynasty, and so one has to examine his love life in this regard.

Nicholas Farrelly:In a 2007 interview with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation you said that “The constitutions changed, political leaders changed and all the time there was this promotion of the King as a good, honest leader. Slowly I think the people really accepted that, really believed that, and they started to believe all the mythology about the King that was promoted. Nothing was said bad about the King, everything was good, and in that kind of environment, you sort of say, ‘Well it seems not to be bad’”. Do you think that the mythology that surrounds King Bhumibol has been threatened since the September 2006 coup?

Paul Handley: Not so much. He has always had these moments where a lot more Thais – never the majority – question what he is doing, but eventually the image recovers. I think it is pretty bulletproof. Whatever I wrote, Thais will love him, and worship him after he dies.

Nicholas Farrelly:In that same interview you reflected that “what I’m saying in this interview right now could be construed as lese-majeste in Thailand, and if I was in Thailand I could be arrested for just suggesting that there might be another story. And this has worked incredibly effectively to protect his image, to make sure that everyone believes that he – King Bhumibol – and the institution he leads, the institution of the monarchy, is only a force for the good in Thailand, and only has good ideas and he’s truly a wise sovereign who only does the correct thing”. Since publishing The King Never Smiles can you return to Thailand? Would you want to? Have you ever been formally warned or reprimanded by Thai authorities? Or by anybody else?

Paul Handley: Of course I would want to. It’s a lovely place, I have friends there, it was a big part of my life, altogether 13 years or so. Can you really get good Thai food outside the country? But I understood in writing this book that I would not be welcomed back. I have received no warning or threat, I haven’t checked whether they have me on any blacklist. I know of no charges filed in absentia. Remember, the official view of my book is, it doesn’t exist. So filing charges against me would just recognize it. I have not been threatened by any one. I think all the attention has really been on Thaksin anyway. The bloody scene-stealer.

Nicholas Farrelly:Before we finish, I thought it was worth raising one of the big issues that has been partially illuminated by your account: succession. It is an issue that has been very widely discussed in the wake of The King Never Smiles. At least in Thailand, this is one aspect of palace politics that is off limits for public discussion and is often only whispered about. As his unofficial biographer, what lessons do you think Bhumibol’s reign offers for future kings or queens?

Paul Handley: The positive lessons: try to be a force for social good, to recognize that you have a role to help the little people against the hefty forces of freewheeling capitalism, that you have to keep the long-term view when others are short-term.

The negative lessons: remember that everything is not about you, that your institution is vulnerable to mismanagement by your heirs and so the country needs other firm institutions – and by the way, that is not the military. And that electoral democracy, as they say, is a rotten system except for all the others, which are all worse.

Nicholas Farrelly:At the end of the book, you conclude that for the institution’s survival “ultimately, members of the royal family will have to make use of one of the monarchy’s greatest unspoken prerogatives: the alchemic ability and right to remake itself before others do it”. What changes do you think the royal family need to make if they hope to see future monarchs take the throne in a peaceful and prosperous country?

Paul Handley: They need to desacralize the monarchy, themselves, to become working royals as in Europe, without the air of holiness. Europe’s royals show you can still be wonderful, beloved, adored, without assuming religious status and demanding fealty. Perhaps the Mahidols are already going down that road. But they also have to shed their haughtiness, and only Princess Sirindhorn has managed that.

Nicholas Farrelly:And, finally, what are your professional plans now?I assume that a quiet retirement at a Thai beach resort is out of the question.Do you have any other major projects in the pipeline?

Paul Handley: I have an unsexy job at a news agency in Washington DC and I am dreaming of getting a posting somewhere else, back to Asia would be great. One book was enough for the moment. I don’t recommend it.

Nicholas Farrelly: Thanks for taking part in New Mandala’s interview series.It has been a pleasure having you involved.

Paul Handley: Thanks to you and your readers for interest in the book, the compliments, snipes and stones. A great website that is getting better all the time.

Nicholas Farrelly:Thanks!Readers can find some of Paul Handley’s replies to questions and comments in this follow-up post.

79 Responses

I read 3/4 of the book already. And unbelievably, it has opened my eyes about the Thai monarchy. It was published just in time almost to predict the Sept 19 coup and explains monarchy’s involvement in Thai politics. I really thank Paul Handley for such an insightful piece of Thailand’s history.

Paul Handley: The positive lessons: try to be a force for social good, to recognize that you have a role to help the little people against the hefty forces of freewheeling capitalism, that you have to keep the long-term view when others are short-term.

(a disclosure: I am an animist-Buddhist Thai who considers HM the King semi-divine through his life-long work for the good of the people. Through his perseverence in being ‘thamma-racha’, he achieved ‘deva-racha’…)

Having read Paul’s book and this interview, it confirms to me that he is merely a brilliant opportunist who happens to spot a niche area – an area where no other foriegners dare thread before. I have asked myself why and came with the answer that other foriegners (many probably far more qualified to write on such a subject), however critical of the monarchy, also consider themselves ‘friends of Thailand’ and have Thai friends they love and respect enough not to ask “… questions about the monarchy under the cover of interviews on entirely different subjects…” not telling “… many (I assume Thai) people I was doing such a book”. From the interview, he has no intention of visiting Thailand and has not even attempted to do so – this implies that writing the book was coldly premeditated and calculated.

This is fair enough and I ask if this makes Paul Handey any different from a sex tourist visiting Patpong or Pattaya. His transactions with Thais are strictly business – the main difference is that his Thai ‘friends’ must have trusted him enough to discuss the monarchy… Ofcourse Mr.Handey is a journalist (and he has been upfront with that fact) – not an academic so I cannot subject him to that standard. On that note, I find Mr.Handey has compromised his book by reporting rumours/gossips as truths in the tradition of women’s celebrity magazines (in that sense, Paul Handey has been over-awed by the monarchy himself).

I will take my ‘Thai’ hat off and try to see things as a ‘Westerner’, I might just say “fair dinkum mate” (but did ya have to rip off the poor Thais?) – as nothing is ‘sacred’ here…

Sidh S.: I am not at all sure I understand your post, but let me suggest one thing: if anyone was writing a book on the king that was attempting to do more than reproduce the the sickly sweet hagiographical accounts that pepper Thailand’s bookshelves, would you want to be wandering around telling everyone that you were engaged in such an exercise? If one did, one wouldn’t last long.

And, protecting friends from accusations and charges after the book comes out might make good sense.

Finally, what is wrong with using women’s magazines as sources? Many of these (e.g. Dichan, Lips) have been used by the royals for their own purposes, including important interviews of the various royals.

Thanks for the interview Nicholas – did you find out why there were no pictures in the book?
(I still think he should have been able to source a few interesting pics without being seen to be reinforcing the propaganda)

Restorationist: Sidh tried to make readers understand his post by introducing it with the sentence

“I am an animist-Buddhist Thai who considers HM the King semi-divine through his life-long work for the good of the people. Through his perseverence in being ‘thamma-racha’, he achieved ‘deva-racha’…),.”

and ending it with

“I will take my ‘Thai’ hat off and try to see things as a ‘Westerner’, I might just say “fair dinkum mate” (but did ya have to rip off the poor Thais?) – as nothing is ’sacred’ here…”

This is part of his struggle–he tries to deal with people who have gone through the period of enlightenment (and their products, such as Hendley’s book or academic publications) as a person with an essentially pre-enlightenment religious-animistic world view. In Europe, the stuggle between these two worlds lasted for many generations.

For people with Sidh’s outlook, the concepts of “knowledge”, and even more the scientific version of “new knowledge”, are hard to comprehend and accept. Look at what happens at Thai universties. As a result, Thais in the western world, and farang in Thailand, do only very partially live in the same worlds, or cultures. Most of their communications are still very much cross-cultural. One can never underestimate this situation, although it is of course fashionable, and politically more correct, to present an image that embraces cosmopolitan global modernity.

Statements such as that of Sidh’s, by contrast, are a lot more honest.

Sidh S.: you practice the tired old method of attacking the messenger, not the message. You say you’ve read the book, so why not refute its central thesis with reasoned, rational arguments instead of attacking the motivation and methods of the author.

Sidh H, if Handley was “merely a brilliant opportunist who happens to spot a niche area”, he’d have chosen a topic that would have taken less than 15 years to research and write.
Your questioning why scholars did not write such a book first is an important one, although I don’t agree with your conclusion. If that were the reason, then one could not have much respect for such scholars, whose discipline should be ‘without fear or favour’.
Re bias, you have stated yours. Few outside Thailand would hold a similar position on the fanciful ‘semi-divinity’ of HMK.
Handley on the other hand said that his view of the King changed several times during the writing of the book.
Your critique doesn’t stand up. Can you tell us what a non-hagiographical treatment of HMK would contain in your view ?

Paul — you may recall we used to bump into one another at TDRI annual meetings in Jomtien and the FCCT. I lived and worked in Thailand and Cambodia for 12 years, and I’m a jazz saxophone player . I used to wonder why Bhumibol and Sihanouk weren’t buddies. Your account (i.e., Sihanouk was kinda screwy and worse, he borrowed and failed to return the Bhumibol’s golden saxophone) was, to me, as good a reason as any why their relationship wasn’t closer. The point is, your book contains many such anecdotes, most of which were new to me, which may be discounted as hearsay by some readers but for those of us who play saxophones, so to speak, they make perfect sense. Thanks for opening my eyes to the Thai monarchy — and to modern Thailand — in ways which no other book before yours has come close. Regards — Craig

Thankyou for your deconstruction of my unenlightened Thai self Srithanonchai. In response to the others (Restorationist, Taxi Driver, Bob), it might help to do a deeper discussion of that ‘self’.

We are all well-read people here and all trained in that ‘enlightened’ , ‘scientific’, ”modern’, Western’ tradition where everything is differentiated, discriminated, spliced up to the finest sub-atomic particles to construct knowledge. This has led us to industrialization, European colonization, modernity and globalization – which has led to great things for humanity (longer, better, material rich lives). But there are many downsides too such as the global environmental health at its worse (at least by human hands), some of the bloodiest wars and genocides in history, some of the greatest socio-economic distributive inequities (and I read this morning that 225 richest people holds the equivalent wealth of 2.7 billion of the poorest)…

It is the mind which spawned discriminating concepts of ‘nation-state’, ‘ethnicity and race’, ‘civilized/uncivilized’, ‘science/arts’, ‘religious/secular’, ‘nature/culture’ – which, by nature, encourage competitions and conflicts some of which are for the good (creative frictions) but many, unfortunately has been for the bad (degeneration). With that point of view, the way one deals with ‘differences’ is either to make them the same (conversion, make civilized) or to get rid of them (extermination) much like what the Germans did to the European Jewish population in WWII and how the ‘West’ is treating Islam and Muslims through the guise of ‘War on Terror’…

This is the context that I view Paul Handey’s book – the aim is neo-colonialism which is to ‘civilize’, ‘sterilize’ the Thais. It want to convert the Mahidols into the Windsors, it want to convert the animist Thais from their magical mumbo-jumbo, the idolatory, the Jatukam Ramathep, Palad Khik and Buddhist amulet nonsense. It wants to do that through belittlement – to make Thais a global laughing stock for worshipping a ‘false god’ (and by extension all false gods/spirits). It is clearly uncomfortable with Thai culture and identity and its long historical links to the monarchy. It can’t wait for Thai society to become ‘modern’ and ‘developed’ to become like ‘us’ in the West.

So, I don’t think Paul Handey really misses Thailand…

On the other hand, Taxi Driver and Bob, I am not saying that the book should be burned or banned. It is certainly a useful book for Western audiences to understand Thai monarchy and ‘modern’ Thailand from a Western worldview as Craig Steffenson has found. I will not discuss the contents (as I’ve said, I view it as ‘Rumours/gossips Greatest Hits’ which certainly makes it an interesting read) and will concentrate on the author’s intents (more accurately, my analysis of it)…

As a German, I find equating Hitler’s Holocaust and the “Western” position towards Islam grossly nonsensical (similar to the Western-educated Thai university professors who, with astonishing ignorance, equated Thaksin with Hitler). By the way, Germany has a large Muslim population, more than Thailand. Do you really want to suggest that the German government has a policy of mass-murdering its own Muslim population as well as all other Muslims whereever they live?

Sidh: HMK Semi-divine?
I’ve never actually heard anyone admit they believed that, and I struggle to understand what you mean – would you care to explain?
(or has an attempt at humor gone over my head?)

I don’t have the book anymore, but I seem to recall Handley concluded HMK’s biggest potential failure is the failure to facilitate a smooth succession.
The book was written before the latest coup, but based on what we know to date, I agree with Handley on that point.

You can like the book or not, but it is flat out inaccurate to say it is based on mere rumor. The book was published by Yale University Press, which came under huge pressure by Thailand, and apparently the Bush administration, not to publish it.

I understand, and Paul can comment, that this book was subject to more scrunity than other books and anything not proven beyond academic standards was removed. Yale certainly knew that it would be controversial and wasn’t going to risk making mistakes.

Yale has little vested interest in a controversial book, aside from scolarship. The University Endowment dwarfs any potential revenue from a book about Thailand.

I have Royalist friends who heap scorn on the book and its theory that the King is an anti-democratic force, but at least they recognized that the research is solid and the history accurate.

I think he makes the same argument that Edward Said makes in “Orientalism.”

I don’t want to speak for Sidh because he can speak for himself, but for an outsider to deconstruct the Thai monarchy from a rationalist “western” perspective, I think that causes the same sort of discomfort, same, for example, when a person like Richard Dawkin’s deconstructs Christianity for a fundamentalist Christian.

Is it possible to talk about the monarchy with detachment? Shouldn’t a Buddhist be able to do that?

One would think so, but for many Thais it is difficult.

True believers don’t want anybody injecting any sort of Socratic/Buddhist reasoning into the rational breaking down of their belief system.

Foucault(also Marx) made the argument that when you deconstruct “truth”, what one really finds is that what we experience as present truth was created by the powers at be who wanted to sustain their power in the past. The Buddha also makes the same argument(but at a personal level) Put simply, most of us are deluded, and we take a lot of comfort in our mental delusions. But if we choose to examine and examine and examine some more in order to uncover our delusions and see the truth, dhamma, for what it is, we become liberated, but once liberated we must take responsibility for our freedom, and that scares the shit out of most people. Ergo, this is a reason why Thais never like to take responsibility for anything. It is easier to blame all of Thailand’s problems on the “other” (the farang, Thaksin, karma, the commies, the dark influences, the Burmese, the Khmer, globalization, capitalism, the poor, the dumb farmers) rather than act as democrats(Buddhists) and take responsibility for what is happening in the present.

For Thais, as a people, they haven’t had to deal with Nietzsche’s notion of “God is dead” because that is scary. They are told without God(the king) Thailand is destroyed and Thai identity will cease to exist. It is all bullshit, of course, but the brainwashing has occurred from cradle to grave. It is scary.

If the myth of King Bumibol(Thai kingship) is dead, that means a serious existential crisis for most Thais. (Also see Dostoevsky’s Grant Inquisitor in Brother Karamazov to illuminate this point) But who do we blame for our self-delusions? The elite who control the propaganda and perpetuate myths to the long term detriment of the country and its political development or the masses who eagerly accept the propaganda without question because they don’t want the responsibility of thinking for themselves? For those of us in the middle, what do we have left? Materialism and/or asceticism. We certainly don’t have a public space, because that has become corrupted and/or usurped by the military, the academics, the bureaucrats, the politicians and the media.

In the final analysis, I agree with Handley on this point: The monarchy that King Bumibol has shaped the last 60 years has not prepared Thais, emotionally, politically, and mentally for a Thailand without him. And that is irresponsible.

“The monarchy that King Bumibol has shaped the last 60 years has not prepared Thais, emotionally, politically, and mentally for a Thailand without him. And that is irresponsible.”

I don’t know about that Tosakan. HMK did try to ‘guide’ the Kingdom towards a working democracy considering that a ‘working democracy’, rather than an ‘entrenched military’ prone to taking power by force, is the safer system to preserve HMK’s legacy and the monarchy.

I believe it was the elected corrupt leaders like Thaksin, Banharn and/or Chavalit who were responsible for the democratic course HMK must surely have preferred.

It was NOT for want of trying Tosakan: HMK tried very hard to prepare the Thais for a Thailand without him but the Thaksins, Banharns and Chavalits were jokers that got in the way.

I like Tosakan’s comment. However, do enough Thais exist in a Judao-Christian paradigm to use the criticisms of the human condition by Nietszche or Foucault? Should liberal criticisms of ‘what to do’ have influence over Thai culture post-Bhumibol? This angers me because I don’t like things tying into Fukuyama’s presumption.

Also, Liberalism assumes the divinity of the individual through natural law; natural law in the Buddhist framework cannot be secularized (which I think you infer) because it is an absolute. Simply because the Buddha admits it doesn’t make it any less absolute, instead I think it makes it more so!

I recall that in an interview shortly after the coup last year Paul Handley suggested that a key motivation for the coup was the succession issue. Mr Handley if you are reading this it would be great if you could re-elaborate on this point in this post.

Re: Sidh> You said: “[the] Western’ tradition where everything is differentiated, discriminated, spliced up to the finest sub-atomic particles to construct knowledge.”

If you think that is purely a “Western” tradition, then I take it you’ve never read the Abhidharma. It is quite rediculous for you to launch into a diatribe concerning the “Western” discriminating, dualist mind, while you, yourself, draw an absolute dividing line between “East” and “West”.

Or are you just willing to think in a “Western” manner when it supports your own racist attitudes, my dear Sidh?

Long story short, Sidh, you can’t have it both ways: Thailand cannot triumph in the fact that it was never colonized by a Western power on the one hand, and on the other, join the chorus of its Non-Aligned Movement brethren in crying “Neo-Colonialism” (i.e. the “Blame Whitey” game), when things don’t go its way.

But I guess “truth/ignorance” is another one of those false Western dichotomies, isn’t?

I meant that I wonder whether or not without Thais having developed organically a mechanism to critique their own society it is really wise for Thai people to use philosophers like Nietszche or Foucault for they have emerged from a societal environment based on Christian natural law. I think that a lot of people tend to view Buddhism as something that is able to be placed within a secular framework and its not and neither are any other paths to divinity, so how can a society thats law is based on generations of spiritual indoctrination be compatible with the law of an equally absolute one from a Judao-Christian framework? The view that due to globalisation there is this agnostic sentiment spreading worldwide is wrong because agnosticism is a product of secularism which is often incompatible with non Western law. Thus it becomes a loaded critique leading to a Huntington or Fukuyama tapestry.

Tosakan says: The Buddha also makes the same argument(but at a personal level) Put simply, most of us are deluded, and we take a lot of comfort in our mental delusions. But if we choose to examine and examine and examine some more in order to uncover our delusions and see the truth, dhamma, for what it is, we become liberated, but once liberated we must take responsibility for our freedom, and that scares the shit out of most people. Ergo, this is a reason why Thais never like to take responsibility for anything.

To say that specifically Thais don’t take responsibility for anything on a mass scale is ridiculous because neither does any other people. I don’t think that you can use European philosophers or conceptions of natural law to critique Thai politics because it becomes no longer about Thais, but the West’s relationship with Thailand, which in the end dilutes Thai sovereignty and development if it has too much influence.

In the final analysis, I agree with Handley on this point: The monarchy that King Bumibol has shaped the last 60 years has not prepared Thais, emotionally, politically, and mentally for a Thailand without him. And that is irresponsible.

Bhumibol is an essential element in Thai sovereignty (devine or not), so to say that it is irresponsible for him to leave no obvious successor is to be totally hypocritical of everything Tosakan said previously about learning to take responsibility from a Western paradigmatic! Therefore, it is not right to critique Thais with something that is not yet developed by them.

I see that you are a German, Srithanonchai – you misunderstood my comments and took it personally. No I am not equating the holocaust with contemporary ‘War on Terror’ – as a person who stresses specific historical and cultural contexts (some evidences in my past comments), it would be the last thing I do. Based on that misunderstanding, I believe you got carried away emotionally and thought that I suggest the present German government exterminate its Turkish/Kurdish Muslim population. We know that it is universally accepted that Germany has admirably redressed it’s war time atrocities (especially compared to Japan). No debates there.

Thanks Tosakan for doing another ‘deconstruction’ take. If Thais were ‘true’ Buddhist (if that state of being is possible), we’ll probably not have this discussion or this blog! I actually see Thais as more ‘animist’ than Buddhist (or their religion is an animist interpretation of Buddhism). I’m afraid they are not rationale (but who is really – when faced with self-interests). Yet Thais are quite (annoyingly at times) practical – if the Jatukam does not work, then its market price will naturally drop. The same goes to the ruling elites – historically, if they don’t perform their duties well, they will be overthrown. When we consider that with long historical-cultural experiences with violent dynastic successions during most of the Ayudhya era – I think many people are overly concerned with Thailand’s monarchic succession (please, although Thais are bad Buddhist – everyone knows the cycle of ‘kerd’, ‘kae’, ‘jeb’, ‘taye’. Thais are so well prepared I argue)…

In many ways, I see it as an external, foriegn construct and Paul Handey’s book is especially effective in prepetuating what is at most ‘quarter-truths’ – not even ‘half-truths’ (and I really wonder Observer how many Thai friends Paul had to trick to substantiate all those rumours). He writes it as if Thai democracy and democratic development is up to the whims of and held hostage by one person/one institution, HM the King and the monarchy. There were so many figures and agents as influential and critical, for better and for worse, particularly at the pinnacle of their careers (AjarnPridi Bhanomyong, FM P.Pibulsongkram, Sarit and a very long line of generals up to the present GenSonthi; the many godfathers and tycoons whether in the city or provinces up to the present PMThaksin…etc…etc…). We have to clearly diffentiate here – HM the King is not running the country (he never did) – at any time, a large ‘alliance of interests’ is. From time to time (at least 17 times if we only count the coups), through various reasons (often greed, conflicts in interests), those groups of people mess up and the King is drawn into the fray – to give guidance as best as he could.

And it is at these junctures that the world judges him – often unfairly as they don’t look carefully at the specific contexts and, focusing almost solely on the HM the King, often ignored the ‘real’ players/instigators/culprits. Thai people, living on the ground through those times, are also aware of the situation and, as we know, judged the King favorably. They know that the King, whether they agree or not with his decisions, always had the very best interests of the Thai people and, I argue, Thai democracy at heart. If PMThaksin wasn’t ‘too naughty and greedy’ and respected the spirit of the 1997 People’s Constitution, which also had the King’s tacit support, things would obviously be significantly different…

“dilutes Thai sovereignty” >> First, this semantic element is an echo of the Westphalian peace agreement (1648) rather than a Thai “development”. Is there a way of anchoring it in Thai culture, which was based on dynasties? Second, do you refer to political sovereignty (state-state relations) or to societal sovereignty? And how can the latter be seriously claimed given that Thailand without very substantial Khmer, Mon, Indian, Chinese, Western, and Japanese influences is impossible to imagine? If we insist on only keeping what was “developed by the Thais themselves,” what would we be left with?

“Bhumibol is an essential element in Thai sovereignty” >> Do you mean “identity”? If so, the problematic status of an essentialized understanding of Thai identity has often been pointed out on this blog.

I think that Handley should be awarded some kind of prize by the international Thai Studies community. (In fact, if Thammasat’s International Conference on Thai Studies organizers were sincere about their commitment to freedom of criticism of the monarchy THEY should award the prize to Handley at the conference in January 2008 – perhaps after they finish their celebrations of the king’s 80th birthday. At the same time as a number Thai Studies academics will “bravely” present their papers on the monarchy Handley is effectively banned from the country for doing what they should have done long before. Handley has done what no other Thai Studies academic has done in 50 years: write a critical biography of the King of Thailand. After awarding the prize there should be serious reflection among Thai Studies academics about their own failure to do what should have been done a long time ago. I say again, you have to ask yourself why this critical work hasn’t been already been done by farang scholars, when, unlike for their Thai counterparts, there is no lese majeste law preventing them from such criticism. It has to stand as a monumental failure of Thai Studies as a discipline. How to explain this failure? The marginal nature of Thai Studies in universities outside of Thailand? The farang attraction to exotic Asian feudal society and all its privileges? A farang scholarly bias against capitalism and liberalism which attracts them to a natural ally – the monarchy? Insufficient skills in language and cultural interpretation? For any young Thai Studies scholar who may frequent NM this would be a good PhD topic to take up.

I think about all the criticism of Queen Elizabeth or Prince Charles, arguably two largely benign royals, and then compare this with the way Thai scholars have portrayed Bhumibol, a ruler who has been hand in glove with military dictators his whole working life, whose anti-democratic thinking has been on display for all to see in his books, his speeches, and not least his actions over the last 50 years, and whose avarice makes Indonesia’s Suharto look like a model practitioner of sufficiency economy (the recent news in Forbes that Thailand’s King Bhumibol was the 5th wealthiest monarch in the world should be food for thought for those associated with the UNDP report last year – used to good effect as a propaganda tool for the junta – and for all those academics currently working earnestly on the King’s “new theory”). In fact, the king is a Thai version of Suharto, yet far worse, because he is also surrounded and protected by this poisonous miasma of religious and feudal symbolism and taboo. Again, the image that comes to my mind is of his subjects forced to grovel in prostration at the feet of this man. But yet you still have academics writing in scholarly journals very recently about the king as a democratic force necessary to counteract the “anti-democratic” Thaksin. And you have Thai Studies programs at SOAS and the ANU rolling out the red carpet for the propagandists for the coup that was carried out in his name!

Having said this, I don’t think (and I would guess that Handley would not want) this book to stand as the definitive portrayal of the king. In fact, I have a number of criticisms of the book. I think he was far too sympathetic to the king, and still has a rather na├пve belief in the ability, let alone the desire, of the monarchy to transform itself. (These things don’t transform themselves, they get transformed by others). The death of the King’s elder brother in 1946, an enormously important event, was insufficiently dealt with. I think he takes much too seriously all that bodhisattva-devaraja stuff. If you have a look at some of the anti-monarchy websites (especially Phraya Phichai’s one that was just closed) you will see that a lot of Thais treat that as a joke. And for the latter part of his reign to my mind it is essential to read McCargo’s network monarchy alongside TKNS. Also, I think this endlessly repeated idea of the “highly revered” Thai king should be deconstructed. Where is the evidence? Has a survey ever been done without the lese majeste law in place preventing people from speaking freely? Just look at the referendum: over 40% of people voted against a constitution that was promoted by the junta partly as being about protecting the monarchy. After the junta’s attempts to demonize Thaksin for “insulting” the king and even for planning to overthrow the monarchy, Thai Rak Thai still has huge support in the countryside.

None of this criticism, however, should detract from my respect for what Handley has done with this book.

“Misunderstanding”, and “No debates there.” >> All right. (Just fyi, I was completely void of any emotions while reading your post and composing my response. I merely found your statement rather misleading.)

I think it is incumbent on Sidh S to spell out the errors in Handley’s book. Here I don’t mean simply disagreeing with him or having a different interpretation, but telling us about the errors Sidh S. has found. Or is this being entirely too Western and rationalist?

“He writes it as if Thai democracy and democratic development is up to the whims of and held hostage by one person/one institution, HM the King and the monarchy.”

Sidh, when you write a statement such as that, and then proceed to write this, “those groups of people mess up and the King is drawn into the fray – to give guidance as best as he could”, you’re merely guilty of the same sin you accuse Paul Handley of. You downplay HMK’s role to the point of “wise, innocent guide.” This sort of naive statement of your delusion and attachment to the propaganda has rendered your opinion rather less forceful.

You must admit that at the very least, HMK was instrumental in some coups and events. You must admit that as monarch, he had his influence (and his perceived mission) to act. To say he is the main obstacle to Thai democracy would be wrong, as you say. But to still see him as a benevolent constitutional monarch stuck in the crossfires is also entirely wrong. He was a big force and face it, he was more a big force for military dictatorship than for democracy.

Read up on Spain’s King Juan Carlos I. Now THAT, is a democratic monarch.

Restorationist, I have already stated, I am not interested to discuss the contents of the book but to analyse Paul Handey’s intent, the context he wrote the book and the audiences it is aimed for.

The job is probably more suited to a non-Thai and would require a very large research grant over many years. On the other hand, it is probably not suited to an academic – bounded by ‘research ethics’ (we have to reveal our intents upfront for one), but another journalist like Paul, who can afford to be more ruthless and underhanded in collecting ‘data’ (or ‘rumours’) – and, I must add, bias in interpreting those data/rumours (Fox news is pretty adept at that). The ‘fieldwork’ required will be very difficult and the original ‘sources’ (from the high echelons – nobility, bureaucrats, academics etc. – to the common people – taxi-drivers, hairdressers, market stall owners etc.) will be extremely difficult to track down and will likely distance themselves from the book.

As I mentioned, I am much more interested in a more comprehensive, even-handed treatment that considers all players/institutions specific historical and cultural contexts – and here, I accept Teth’s critique. Although I won’t compare Spain’s with Thailand’s case as the historical, cultural, socio-economic contexts are significantly different (there might be a bit more similarity if only FM P.Pibulsongkram ruled to the end of the 70s like Franco). I also find Grasshopper’s (#22) take on the Thai socio-cultural framework very interesting.

Sidh S.: If your view is that facts and content are unimportant to your analysis but that it is intent that is important, then I suggest that you refrain from comments that suggest that Handley is “prepetuating [sic.] what is at most ‘quarter-truths’ – not even ‘half-truths’…” and from allegedly factual statements that themselves may be no more than “quarter-truths” (e.g. that when other “groups of people mess up and the King is drawn into the fray – to give guidance as best as he could.”) Your statement that “Thai people … know that the King, whether they agree or not with his decisions, always had the very best interests of the Thai people…” is a statement of belief and this kind of blanket speaking for all Thais as if you know them all and their opinions is insulting, elitist, unenlightening and orientalist.

Sidh’s could as well reject a book written by, say, Pasuk, “reasoning” that he did not like her hair style. As if such a thing had anything to do with the product. Trying to limit one’s reading to books of authors with whose intentions during the production process one agrees could prove a very difficult approach.

Restorationist, if you are a Thai I accept your allegations – if not, you are entitled to your foriegn views (do remember that Paul Handey made a similar blanket statement in this interview: “…Whatever I wrote, Thais will love him, and worship him after he dies.”)

The same applies to Taxi Driver – unless he is a real Bangkok taxi driver:

“p.s. your attempt to discredit Handley’s intentions and methods smacks of someone who doesn’t like the book but can’t refute its contents, so he/she attacks the author instead. Very Thai.”

Srithanonchai, funny example of AjarnPasuk’s hair style! On this case, I believe I gave a better example of Fox News and how the same set of data/rumors can be manipulated/twisted based on believes/ideology. Paul Handey stated so along the line of:

“…No one I met ever had first-hand information on this, it was just rumor. Rumor that benefitted the monarchy. There are countless examples like this which shape the king’s image, and image is crucial.

The critics focus though on the negative rumors that I repeat. Most of these are rumors that either I believe to be true, or that are probably not true but nevertheless have substantial impact on the image of the throne and the royal family…”

Teth’s third paragraph is his interpretation of what he reads and if his/her main source is Paul Handey’s thesis, then that is not surprising.

“Handley has done what no other Thai Studies academic has done in 50 years: write a critical biography of the King of Thailand. After awarding the prize there should be serious reflection among Thai Studies academics about their own failure to do what should have been done a long time ago. I say again, you have to ask yourself why this critical work hasn’t been already been done by farang scholars, when, unlike for their Thai counterparts, there is no lese majeste law preventing them from such criticism. ”

Well said Republican!!!! I started to write a very long post to this effect for my blog, but never got around to posting it.

It’s a pointless question, Taxi Driver, because it would only be his opinion, not any proof.

Handley, Republican, you, me – we all have opinions, but where is the real evidence?
(I normally like conspiracy theories, but after 60 years you would think that someone would have leaked something substantive by now)

Personally, I don’t see HMK as ‘stuck in the crossfires’ or a ‘big force’, but rather I see him as someone who is fighting on a different front completely, and is occasionally (reluctantly) forced to intervene to smooth things over when stability of the nation looks threatened.

I also believe that intervention is done with a pure heart like a parent tries to protect his children, however I accept that sometimes children just have to learn for themselves, and whilst parental protection can save children from danger, it can also sometimes hold back their development.

To my fellow Thai (Taxi Driver), with Teth’s #30 third paragraph, I don’t completely agree with the first sentence (esp. if “instrumental” means having a large role in the instigation, planning and implementation of coups) and totally disagree with last statement (I’m fine with the rest). That is Paul Handey’s and Teth’s call. From my own analysis (expressed in many comments), HM the King was more a big force for democracy than for military dictatorship. If we take the institution of the monarchy out of the equation (or the country has a less capable and/or uncharismatic monarch), I have little doubt Thailand will be continuously run by the military for the past half century until today (probably from Ajarn Pridi’s exile onward).

I still remember my teenage years when I begun reading Thairath and being very frustrated with PMPrem (and how AjarnKukrit, PMPrem’s nemesis, criticized him!) – and being happy when he declined the prime ministership in 1988. I only realize much later the difficult role he played in nurturing democratic party politics, while keeping more unscrupulous and ambitious army generals at bay. I based my favorable viewpoint on the past 20 years that I ‘lived’ Thai politics – prior to that (the mid-80s) I relied on historical accounts.

Thanks Sidh S. (and Ngarn) for your responses. Sidh S., I would be interested to learn your reasons for concluding that HMK was a ‘force for democracy than for military dictatorship’. What makes you say that?

As for me, I think HMK’s priority has always been domestic stability, and the military – through their command and control, manpower, guns and tanks – have been the ‘preferred solution provider’ over the years. Democracy is permitted, but not at the expense of stability.

I cannot recall HMK ever risking his position or his institution to defend or promote democracy. I challenge you to find one speech, one paper, one act, anything, from HMK over the past 60 years (including Oct 74, May 97, and 2006) that advocates democracy over stability.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m don’t think HMK is a bad influence on the country. He’s certainly been a ‘big force’ for stability, but I just think is incorrect to say he’s been a ‘force’ for democracy.

I think most Thais have a view of HMK that is heavily influenced by the propaganda that surrounds him, and its a shame. HMK and the institution of monarchy can do with more open constructive criticism (HMK even said so himself).

Imagine any brand which could have such amount of free advertisement as the monarchy had during 60 years. Every day hours on every TV-Channel, same in Radio. And huge coverage in the Newspapers. A brand which is shown on each village entry.

And now the best: A brand you may not speak badly, you may not discuss about it! It is just the brand as it is and it is good.

A brand which is promoted in the schools, in the wats, in the governmental buildings, everywhere.

A brand which is called to be the only really good brand in the country, because only member of this brand (family) did really good for the country. (Are there any other then Royals who did good for the country?)

[…] steampunk fashion wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptSidh’s could as well reject a book written by, say, Pasuk, “reasoning” that he did not like her hair style. As if such a thing had anything to do with the product. Trying to limit one’s reading to books of authors with whose intentions … […]

[…] [email protected] (Leigh Connelly) wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptSrithanonchai, funny example of AjarnPasuk’s hair style! On this case, I believe I gave a better example of Fox News and how the same set of data/rumors can be manipulated/twisted based on believes/ideology. Paul Handey stated so along … […]

[…] Sue wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick [email protected] (Leigh Connelly) wrote an interesting post today onHere’sa quick excerptSrithanonchai, funny example of AjarnPasuk’s hair style! On this case, I believe I gave a better example of Fox News and how the same set of … […]

“Handley, Republican, you, me – we all have opinions, but where is the real evidence?” Well, Handley does provide evidence. That’s the point really. Where are the errors? No one says…. All the naysayers have opinions but no evidence that I can see (so far).

What evidence? We must have read different books.
I accept the book was well researched, but I would be surprised if even Mr Handley thinks he produced any concrete evidence.
Pity a defendant in any court in which you were a judge or juror.

Nganadeeleg, it is not so much any insightful new evidence that Handley produces. In fact, I dare say he produces nothing which is not already known to Thais. What is staggeringly different, however, is how he assembles it all as a critique of HMK.

Part of what makes Handley’s argument and presentation of evidence powerful is how there is no debate regarding this issue in Thailand. Sidh is right to say my main source with regards to HMK is this book, since I am young and haven’t been able to “live” as much politics as he has. Yet so far, I’ve been able to clearly distinguish between what is rumor in Handley’s book and what is actual fact. Important facts, especially ones regarding 6 October, can be found documented by other sources and the silence regarding the monarchy in that event is eerie for me, as a former enthusiastic royalist. Furthermore, the fact that the mainstream media mentions little about anything vaguely negative or ungod-like about HMK seem to suggest that there are somethings that are not said or mentioned.

All in all, I would vouch for Handley’s factual accuracy in this case. I used to criticize the book as being based on rumors, but in actual fact, the rumors that are included are clearly explained as so. Even though Handley may occasionally try to spin a certain event to fit his argument, the book in its entirety has definitely convinced me that I was in fact brainwashed by propaganda and spin for the majority of my life. I was able to rationalize for HMK whilst reading Handley’s book up until the chapter of 6 October. There, I assumed he was simply lying, of course, that was until I did more research to verify his facts…

I think nganadeeleg’s and Taxi Driver’s point on ‘stability’ is quite crucial. I have been pondering on that one for a very long time – especially in relationship to ‘military dictatorship’ vs. ‘democracy’ – and it can easily be called either way, in relation to HM the King’s role.

Siamese-Thai history also provide numerous evidences of negotiations/compromises for the sake of stability and survival. I must stress, though, that the stability and survival has always been in the context of societal change (whether those factors were internal and/or external) – and that is why I believe the HM the King and the Thai elites always had ‘democracy’ in mind as the model to guarantee stability in the long term. I also believe that things will become more apparent with time (I also sense PMSurayud is being groomed to succeed PMPrem – and I think we should watch him very closely).

Teth, I actually view the events of 1976 in that light of societal change. The fall of Saigon just occured a year before and many commentators thought Thailand will be the next ‘domino’ to fall to Communism. No doubt it is a very sad and violent saga in Thai history – and extreme fear and panic had a lot to do with what had occured. The fact that a controversial Buddhist monk got away with saying something along the line of “killing Communists is not bad karma” reflects the abnormal state of mind Thai society was in at that moment in time. The ruling elite thought that having let the US use Thailand as a launching pad to attack Vietnam, naturally they’ll seek revenge (with Russia’s full backing)… Cooler heads eventually spot conflicts between Russian and Chinese Communists and made the most of it to achieve Thai ‘stability’ (in many ways, it is rather predictable, really).

Sir,
I have been working and living in South East Asia for about half of my life since 1983 (first time in Thailand 1981), having written, among others, a guide about Bangkok in German language (just re-issued in ist 5th edition) and several other books, most of them with historic content.
The importance of Paul M. Handleys Book, in my opinion, simply cannot be underestimated. It is a great, even brave work, because it is clear that Paul Handley will definitely not, as quite a few of his and my collegues like to do, retire in Thailand some day.
And, to answer a question which Handley asked himself in this very interesting interview with additional information, this is exactly the reason, why nobody wrote a book like this before. You cannot expect anything near this book from 99 % of all editors, correspondents and free lancers in Bangkok. The reason why there are so many “journalists” in Thailand is simply that beeing a “journalist” is, besides divemaster, one of the easiest ways to get a Thai working visa.
Indeed, what Handley wrote about the Thai King and especially about his family, about family corruption and about the criminal record of a highest member of this family who is even suspectied of being a brutal killer, is NOT new to insiders in Thailand. Given this record, in any European country, the press would have made royal life hell since at least the 1970s. But not so in Thailand.
Also, one cannot praise enough Handleys efford not only to put down names the royal family members in connection to index words like “corruption” and alike, but also to name some of the entourage politicians and military strongmen who have made all this possible.
As for the many deeply corrupt dinosaur politicians that reappear in Thai politics at this very moment, it is extremely interesting to look for these names in the index of The King Never Smiles and follow their tracks since the 1970s.
Take for instance right wing Samak Sunthornvej (who writes himself now Samak Sundaravej and is nevertheless actually pronounced “suntho:nvé:t”), the newly found leader of the former Thai-Rak-Thai Party members.
It was indeed Samak who was personally responsible for the 1976 and 1992 massakers. At this moment, it is only thanks to Paul Handley, that the footsteps of this and other corrupt politians with blood on their hands now can be easily followed up by anyone who likes to understand how Thai politics works.
The index of this much-needed book can, in my opinion, be read like a dictionary of Thai elite corruption during the last 60 years.
I hope, that the King Never Smiles will not only be re-printed many times but also be re-edited and actualized soon so that also some minor mistakes (especially about the Thaksin years) can be improved.
Last not least I recommend to add a short chapter or at least a small appendix about the correct spelling and pronouncation of some of the extremely confusing “official” royal names. THAIS TEND TO TAKE PEOPLE MORE SERIOUS WHEN THEY KNOW ABOUT THEIR LANGUAGE. For instance, the King’s name is actually pronounced Phu:miphon Adunlayadé:t and his sister, who is NOW written officially Galyani Vadhana, is Ga:nlayani Watthana. It surprised me, that Handley did nowhere in his book mention the fact, that the King’s name was actually written according to its correct pronouncation in most of the international press well until the 1960s. The reason for the official change to Bhumibhol Adulyadej, which, unlike Phumiphon Adunlayadet, no Thai can understand when a foreigner pronounces it, would best be included in the chapter about the revival of ratchasap, the royal language.
Kind regards and good luck to this great author.
(Next, by the way, I would like to read a biography of the Sultan of Brunei from Handley…)
hmh.

I actually love the fact that people are preoccupied with the personal motivations of the author as to why he would engage in an endeavor such as writing a book which clearly results in tarnishing the reputation of the present Thai monarch. I may not be much of a journalist, but I am a trained scientist, and in our discipline we generally do a risk benefit analysis before we engage in research that has the potential to do more harm than good.

I believe the stability of a Nation and the people’s own right to choose the object of their affection ( and the methodology by which they do so), and it’s reciprocal effect on their paradigm hold much more virtue than a book in which I see clearly a Western epistemological attempt to engage with a reality that is indigenous, existential and altogether unknowable by the author.

By colonizing the indigenous imagination of the Thais, are we not clearly seeking to dominate, subjugate and render their way of life somehow “less than and inferior” to that of the western paradigm?

A sobering view suggests that it takes decades after an incident in order to properly asses the situation and the multiplicity of features that render social, political, or economic models as either good or evil.

I hope that decades from now, Handley’s book doesn’t fall into the latter category.

Carelus’s rambling speech, so puffed up with spiritual and intellectual pretension, sounds like it could be one of Bhumibol’s.

If he were more direct in what he was supposedly trying say it would most likely be something like:

“Handley’s book is subversive to Thai culture and politics – therefore potentially dangerous. Notions of honesty, transparency, and the right to question traditonal systems that may indeed be corrupt (and the propaganda machine that protects that corruption) are merely a “Western epistemological attempt to engage with a reality that is indigenous, existential and altogether unknowable by the author”.

Carelus : “…colonising the indigenous imagination of the Thais…”! Good heavens! Is that what Handley is trying to do? I thought he was attempting to fill in a very serious gap in the world’s knowledge of Thai history by writing a responsibly researched account of the life & times of the most influential figure in the country’s last 61 years. As a scientist you should be able to appreciate that investigators in other fields hold the truth to be a worthwhile pursuit.

The notion that Westerners should protect those of other less-developed cultures from basic information about the forces at work in their lives because it may demystify is patronising in the extreme.

I sincerely hope that the book will be translated & made available for Thais to download …sorry – no royalties in that. If Thai people are ever going to break out of the disgusting feudalism that is their lot, they need to understand how they are being deluded. Good onyer, Handley, say I.

Republican #26: I heartily agree that Paul Handley should be given a prize. He’s done a wonderful & very courageous thing.

A few academics have said stuff like ‘doesn’t tell us anything we didn’t know before..’ (sour grapes?), but the fact is they haven’t been telling us, have they? Why is this? Well, Thai Studies academics need access to their field. The thais are obviously terribly thin-skinned, & given to denying visas (not to mention more horrible punishments) to those who offend them.

I don’t think it’s very fair to criticize academics from Thammasat in this regard. Thai gaols are hideous places and sentences can be very long (“life” can be literally that, and judges do seem to be able to award whatever sentence they like), always assuming that such an offender got to live long enough to go through the peculiar process known as the Thai System of Justice.

Further, there are obvious advantages to having a work of this type written by a person who has not grown up within the Thai culture, or, especially, been educated within the Thai education system, such as it is.

I was thinking about all this a few days ago, before I read the interview, & wondering if David Wyatt has left anything to be published posthumously.He must surely have come up with all sorts of interesting stuff that was impossible to publish while he maintained his links with the Thais…

One problem for farangs in Thailand is that the Thai social behaviour is so damned seductive, even though we know that all the sycophancy and obsequiousness is a major part of the destructive system of cultural elements that keeps Thais in chains. We value the relationships we form with the few (usually) properly educated Thai academics who are not caught up in the cycle of bare-faced mendacity & revisionism that is the norm, and we don’t want to embarrass or endanger them.

Good points indeed landofsnarls. Just for information, I know that some chapters have been translated into Thai and are circulating. I received a couple of the chapters from an anonymous emailer just last weekend .

Your question about Wyatt is interesting. But he never did write anything that I can recall that was especially critical of anything in Thailand. I’m not sure he wanted to see anything that was critical. I don’t recall (and I may well be wrong) anything on even relatively safe critical topics like the Ramkhamhaeng inscription. His rather dreary History was republished basically unchanged…. So maybe this is the wrong place to look for critical and interesting scholarship or even commentary.

Land of Snarls has made many interesting points from a foriegn perspective. However, to suggest that the Thais are enslaved, “chained” and “uncritical” sounds quite patronizing too. It is almost a colonial mindset – that the enlightened foriegners will come to free the Thais.

My points concerning this has been made above, so I will not repeat. But I will over-dramatize history in the spirit of Land of Snarls over-dramatization of the Thai gaol (as lest majeste cases are usually followed by pardons). In the 19th century, the British systematicaly ‘unchained’ the Burmese by dismantling the whole ‘feudal’ system and shipped them off to India – but seem to have laid down the seeds of another bigger and violent ‘chain’…

This is extreme alternative historical scenarios – ‘comparable’ cultures, one retaining its ‘feudal’ system, another having it violently ripped off by a colonial power(maybe Malaysia provides an intermediate scenario? I am not too sure). Outsiders often forget or choose to conveniently ignore that the ‘feudal’ system has always been in transformation and still is. The players/agents/institutions have always been highly diverse. In this context, to reduce Thai half century of history to HM the King alone is highly patronizing. To do that gives so little credit to Thai society, reduced to slaves!

To put things into broader perspective (not necessary related – pardon the way my mind works), I wonder myself how much we in Australia are also ‘enslaved’? Would the election at the end of the month will reveal how much we are still entrapped by GDP growth and interest rates? How high does local/international social and environmental equity rate?

I will also add that, apart from lest majeste accusations/laws, the banning of books seem to also have a life of its own – with three books coming to mind: “The Revolutionary King” (favorable of the monarchy); Handley’s “The King Never Smiles” (critical of the monarchy); and Ajarn S.Srivalaksa’s recent book on Thai democracy (not too focussed on the monarchy I understand – but by a Thai who at times is openly critical of the monarchy but is not in jail…).

As I’ve mentioned before, the CNS generals would have had a much easier time dealing with PMThaksin and TRT (now PPP) had they merely focussed on lest majeste and take it to extremes (which they are capable of). For the objective of ‘political stability’, that would have been the obvious action to take.

I don’t know for certain what is behind all of this (and they make excellent research topics in themselves) – but we have probably seen another transformation of the way the political game is played…

Sidhi S: Are you really Thai, as you have stated? I find myself questioning this, in view of several of your comments, including those on my postings.

I’ll deal with the question of the Lese Majeste law first. Your statement that such cases are usually followed by a pardon is incorrect. The recent very widely publicized case of the Swede in Chiangmai (a resident for about 10 years), who sprayed graffiti all over HM’s portrait on the King’s birthday resulted in the Swedish Embassy intervening & pointing out that the offender was already known to them to be mentally ill. On the basis of that, plus his statement that he sincerely regretted what he had done, they were able to successfully negotiate with the authorities, and the end result was that HM did very graciously award a pardon. (It’s interesting to note that when the news of the offence broke, expats in Thailand typically reacted with exclamations along the lines of, “He must be completely mad!” ) In fact pardons are not “usual,” especially for Thai subjects. You can check this, if you have any connexions within the Justice Department…and a lot of time, patience, & whatever else the department’s employees might require of you.

My sources, who I contacted for clarification before writing this, are in an authoritative position to comment on the foregoing, as well as my statement that “Thai gaols are hideous places…” They have had regular dealings with the Justice Department, the police, the prison guards, and the prisoners themselves (Thai & otherwise) in various institutions over many years. One suggested that if you would like to have a free trial, they could arrange for you to spend the night in a holding cell, which, while not as bad as an actual prison cell which you could spend 20 or 40 (many do) years in for not always heinous crimes, would give you a “life-changing experience. ” This is a serious offer, by the way. Just say the word. I assure you that the word hideous is not an “over-dramatization.”

I fail to see how your reference to the British in Burma is relevant. Thailand has never been colonised, although I have heard Central and Isan Thais seriously stating that it is being colonized covertly by the Chinese. Mr Thaksin’s sale of the communications satellite (containing key security communications links) to a Singapore government-owned company would tend, in the minds of some, to add weight to what is otherwise a rather silly, indeed racist, idea.

Having experienced what it’s like to be an employee in several Thai public & private sector institutions, as well as having opportunities to observe Thai people in the workplace and in many other environments, I can defend my statement regarding “chains” & feudalism with facts.( Perhaps another thread would be a good idea if you really want to pursue this, since it’s getting away from the main thread of this discussion – the book. )

I must say that your tendency to use manipulative strategies such as the inference that farangs are outsiders (& therefore MUST miss the point) & colonizers, is flaky and boring. Well, of course my perspective is “foreign.” I’m not Thai. I give myself the right to have opinions about anything I want to, anywhere I find myself. Thais do that also, and why not? Discussion about politics and social issues is a worthwhile & constructive pursuit . Do you like everything about Australia? Of course not. Is anyone stopping you from airing your views? Educated Australians, in my experience, are more likely to think there is something wrong with you if you don’t.

Regarding rumours mentioned in the book: One of the most intriguing things about Thailand is the prevalence of often quite vicious rumours about all kinds of people. If a rumour is strong & has a lot of currency, or if a researcher knows of a rumour that was started by a particular faction but didn’t take off, surely that is something that should be mentioned in works of this kind. Recently at a party, a Thai journalist friend of mine told me a number of rumours that are in circulation at the moment. I had heard a couple of them from other sources, including quite highly-connected ones, previously. The most interesting thing about these rumours, and the thing we focussed on in discussing them, was the possible motives of the people who started them and their social meaning, quite apart from whether there is any truth in them. A widespread rumour is as much of a cultural artifact as a ceremony or a building or an artwork, and in and around it there is valuable evidence. A responsible writer declares rumour, and Handley has done that. Obviously he can’t reveal sources of other material that has been gathered from informants, but, as other contributors have commented in their posts, there is clearly no “sensationalist” agenda, & Handley and the publishers are known to have integrity.

Frankly, I don’t think it matters if some details are later shown to be incorrect. I don’t think Handley will lose anything by that. The important thing about this book is that it has broken the ice, turned on the tap. Now there is a discussion & it can move…still shackled, but shuffling forward, nevertheless.

Land of snarls, I am not disputing the ‘conditions’ of Thai gaols – but of the long jail sentences (I recall some implication of “life”) for the crime of lese majeste. From my observation, more than anything else, it is an irresponsible political tool – selectively abused by those in power. Many of the rumours you have heard are far more vicious as you know – and really, I don’t think it is too difficult to track it to the source (at least at the time the rumour was released). My speculation (unsupported by research) is that it is an powerful elites’ game – and this suggests that there are mulitple factions whether allied or opposed (or inbetween) at play. The relative free-flow of all kinds of rumours/artifacts also suggest the populace are exposed to different points of view and made up their minds what to believe (and from my experience talking to my fellow countrymen, that is the case).

And I haven’t said you can’t comment – no one did – I only observed that your view is of a foriegner and I also found it patronizing (something you have accused carelus of). As a ‘critical royalist’ Thai, I can’t see statements such as the one I quoted below in any other way:

“… If Thai people are ever going to break out of the disgusting feudalism that is their lot, they need to understand how they are being deluded. Good onyer, Handley, say I.”

I recall I’ve read something along those lines in Anna Leonowen’s book. That was the 19th century – over a century later, Thais are still “digusting feudalists”?! Such unfair, unempathic assessment!

Let me be clear here, I don’t mind you writing/saying it – some of my Australian friends (not doing Thai studies though) share your views although they haven’t put it in such strong words. If I am not ‘Thai’ enough, maybe I can translate this into Thai and test it on your and my Thai friends who speaks little English to see what they think.

Sidh S, thanks for your response. It seems that you are in agreement with me regarding Thai gaols and the Lese Majeste law – although, I will remind you that you did use the word “usually,” when “sometimes” would have been more accurate. Perhaps I expressed my point re. lengthy gaol sentences badly. My intention was to state that everyone knows that these (in general) seem to be entirely at the discretion of judges & often appear to be extremely disproportionate, not to imply that anyone has ever been imprisoned for life for Lese Majeste.

I’d also like to clarify my statement re. feudalism. I did not say that “Thais are disgusting feudalists.” What I did say was “the disgusting feudalism that is their lot” – in other words, the disgusting system of feudalism that they are forced to endure. This is a system that is perpetuated by the conduct of those in power, feeding into every aspect of society. It’s largely responsible for: inadequate education & the lack of any genuine attempts to improve teaching methods, curricula , assessment methods and class sizes; poor wages & working conditions in every sector, & enormous fear of standing up to the exploitation of the labour market, as well as bare-faced greed on the part of employers; the institutionalized corruption that is well-known to exist in the police force, the armed forces & the public sector; the unbelievably cynical neglect of rural people which made it a simple matter for Thaksin to get enormous support in areas like Isan by handing out a few pathetically small “loans”; the blatant injustice of a system of justice where police can go out & murder thousands of their fellow people in a “drug war” with no judicial enquiries into the deaths (except 2 – the murder of a child, & the murder of an elderly couple who were thought to be “unusually rich” following, it emerged, a lottery win.) ; the mendacious & corruption-riddled handling of the problem in the south…etc. All of this tends to indicate that those who are trapped on the bottom and middle rungs of the ladder are indeed powerless to do anything to improve their condition. I feel disgusted & depressed as I type this, & certainly NOT lacking in compassion or empathy. And I also don’t feel that it is my right or duty to intervene. There are close to 70 million people living here. They don’t need westerners coming here to tell them how to solve the problem, & if I wanted to be a political activist I would be doing it in Australia, where Howard has done such damage to what was formerly a relatively fair & egalitarian society.

At the same time, I do believe that access to information and freedom of discussion about what’s really going on in a society are the beginnings of justice. That’s why I’m pleased to see anything at all that attempts to cut through the bullshit, as TKNS does.

I must say also that what I’m most afraid of is the possibility of violent change here when HM goes. My hope is that whatever happens, everyone else keeps out of it & leaves the Thais to work out their own problems…although, of course we will be observing & commenting.

Thank you for the clarification Land of snarls.
I am probably more optimistic than you in all of this (maybe I have no choice as a Thai?). As I’ve said, it is a society in transformation – maybe too slow for the punters – but I am quietly confident that it is gradually for the better. Maybe Thai social behaviour might eventually not be “so damn seductive” as I suspect the younger generation is already made of something different!

Actually no, I merely cut and pasted some ideas from various papers I had written, into what became ultimately short on truth and long on verbose constructions and jargon ridden mumbo jumbo. I knew what I wanted to say but as you pointed out, in an academic forum it reads much like a parody.

2) You said, If he were more direct in what he was supposedly trying say it would most likely be something like:
“Handley’s book is subversive to Thai culture and politics – therefore potentially dangerous. Notions of honesty, transparency, and the right to question traditonal systems that may indeed be corrupt (and the propaganda machine that protects that corruption) are merely a “Western epistemological attempt to engage with a reality that is indigenous, existential and altogether unknowable by the author”.

Dear Mr. Freak,

Sounds like you already made up your mind on this before you read my stuff.

You also said , “Notions of honesty, transparency, and the right to question traditonal systems that may indeed be corrupt”

Try a regional analysis of the evolution of Social complexity in South East Asia during the last 1500 years and contrast and compare it with Western intervention during the last 500 years and see how things turned out for the indigenous populations. The methods employed by the “West” were not always transparent, legal or honest. Strangely enough the most dishonest western intervention into one particular South East Asian country resulted in a mass genocide primarily because it was halted by guys like you that like to see things in some sort of good-guy/bad guy howdy doody cowboy parade.

I think if we want to cry, “human rights abuse”, “corruption” etc., we really need to do our homework and make sure these terms mean the same thing across cultures.

You also suggest the book is, “subversive to Thai culture and politics”.

I hardly think it is a threat to Politics, but I was there when the Cambodians burned the Thai Embassy in Cambodia. No responsible country should openly invite a mob action. That aside, I believe most Thais are more interested in acquiring the luxuries of life, like food and some semblance of peace in a nation enduring the onslaught of Globalization.

I bet if you passed out a thousand books, most would end up in the garbage can because, (again my belief) that the majority of Thais simply don’t think the way you do. It has been my experience that they don’t want to either.

It is also my belief that these nations will follow along a path to what you perceive to be freedom. Let’s hope when they get there they aren’t all taking prozac in order to cope.

“The notion that Westerners should protect those of other less-developed cultures from basic information about the forces at work in their lives because it may demystify is patronising in the extreme.”

I say,

It has been my experience that contacts between the indigenous and “outsiders” usually result in the indigenous being mystified, and while this is not always the intention of the outsiders it is somehow a resultant condition.

Once mystified, and presumably open to suggestion, if the indigenous are then somehow brought to believe that their own paradigm is false and a new paradigm is introduced, I would consider this as a classic (yet perhaps formulaic) version of Colonialism, regardless if the intentions of the Colonizers sought to help the indigenous.

I tried a similar project in rural Cambodia by simply trying to increase crop yield in one very small village. Upon return to the University my colleagues were astounded at the stupidity of what I was attempting. I believe the comment was,

“YOU DONT KNOW WERE THAT WILL LEAD!!

One Professor was actually writing a paper on the leveling mechanisms inherent in cultures and suggested that, if I was to be ethical and actually succeed in doing good, years of research needed to be done before the inception of my project.

PS-I never meant to suggest, as you said that, “that Westerners should protect those of other less-developed cultures from basic information about the forces at work in their lives”

Actually I think your comment serves to perhaps prove my point that that intervention is a very serious responsibility perhaps best handled by a team of experts from various disciplines.

Handley’s book is a valuable contribution to Thai studies, and should n’t be banned. Banning books is too much like Hitler’s burning them.
But Handley’s account at times descends into America’s long tradition of muck-raking journalism. So it is not suprising a culture such as Thailand’s, has banned this.
That is a pity because Handley’s book has many weak points :
not least being reliance on gossip and rumour. At times it has some appalling historical inaccuracies – eg. Handley write that British punk-rock band burst on the scene with “God Save The Queen”. Actually, it was their previous hit “Anarchy In The UK”.
But worst of all is Handley’s malignant, jaundiced view of His Majesty and General Prem. Nowhere does Handley acknowledge probably Bumiphol’s greatest achievement – i.e. the raising of Thailand from being one of the world’s poorest countries when Bumiphol came to the throne, to it now being one of South-East Asia’s richest. Ditto his comments on Prem’s premiership.

Chris, we are used to your royalist rants now. It is good to know that they retain your loyal support. As usual, though, you rant with no details that would allow anyone to challenge them. Here you execute an extremely late tackle on Handley. Let’s assume you actually read the book. You say Handley treats Prem badly? Maybe some suggestions on where Handley is wrong might be worthwhile and then we could discuss and debate. But maybe that doesn’t interest you?

You also make audacious claims that not even a muck-raking journalist would make. For example, you credit the king with single-handedly “raising of Thailand from being one of the world’s poorest countries when Bumiphol came to the throne, to it now being one of South-East Asia’s richest.” Ignore everyone else. That’s just plain dopey, and not even the kindest researcher would claim such a royal miracle.

And then you get to a single fact that you think Handley gets wrong. In your view, the Sex Pistols “burst on the scene” with Anarchy in the UK, not God Save the Queen. Hang the point Handley is making. But are you right? Both songs were on their only studio album. Anarchy got to no. 38 in the UK whereas God Save the Queen made it to No. 2 (the highest the Pistols ever got) and was the song that caused so much controversy, made their reputation and charts another couple of times on re-releases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_Pistols#.E2.80.9CGod_Save_the_Queen.E2.80.9D) and this is what Handley is saying. So based on the facts, I’ll stick with Handley’s version of the Sex Pistols break out (and the point he is making by using this illustration.

Hello,Pual M.Handley
I am Thai and i have read your book in Thai translation version from my friend. I would like to ask you that you can guarantee that all story that you wrote if it’s real 100% or just a fiction.
How do you feel if someone who want to have the power more than the royal…using your book to be the weapon to make Thai people hate eachothers….and start to fighting now…because they just read your story and believe that the royal family is just bad.. I would like to ask you to do something to help my country please….I believe that you don’t have attention to destroy our country but now i know that they are using you.
Pls check it out, someone try to use the story in your book to attrack the royal family especially , our king now.

Janchisa: Comments like yours above seem to come every now and again to support the glory of the monarchy and to reject any and all scrutiny. But think about it for a moment. If you are a real person and not one of the stooges paid by MICT or the army, you and your friend have both broken the law and could be subject to decades in jail. Don’t believe me? Look at Joe Gordon rotting in jail for allegedly circulating TKNS. Better bolt your doors! Better still, try to think about the book you claim to have read and be less like a royalist automaton in responding.

No one on this planet is above criticism, not even your king. I read the book and I don’t think your king is “just bad.” Handley is merely discussing an important institution in Thailand and this is a good thing.

Do our mothers and fathers need to be perfect for us to love them?

I know yellow shirts and red shirts and both are wonderful people, yet there is ugliness on both sides and to not see this is to be blind.

If Thais are not able to discuss the role monarchy will play in the context of a democracy respectfully in classrooms and in newspapers then the only thing that will be seen and heard is ugliness.

Handley’s book should be the beginning of an important dialogue among Thais not the source of hatred among the Thai people.

Janchisa, Thailand is a special place historically because of its ability to reform itself, change. Is this not why King Chulalongkorn is so beloved? Can’t change also come from the people?

Pls don’t misunderstanding my message, only one thing that i want to ask Pual handley the author of King never smile that if he can confirm that every situation or evedience in this story is the true story or not? That’s all. I am worried and concern about that because i have seen someone tried to use the story in this book to persue and convince some people in youtube which is in the public. It’s true that everyone have the right to think to believe or not but Not everyone have the enlightingment or knowledge enough to think before believe. Why the people love to see the soap more than the documentary. that’s why i would like to ask him and i don’t know how to contact him. that’s why i tried to search and eventually found this website. Honestly although i am yellow by my skin. but the yellow is not my favorite color even neither the red one . I have friends who consider themself as a yellow or red or whatever they called, I never have any problem with them because i respect in others point of view. I am what i am.I believe in Budha and Karma. I believe in freedom and democracy. I just don’t like to see anybody was used by whoever….Hope you understand me.

Instead of you asking Paul Handley to confirm the events, why don’t you yourself do it? It is very simple. If you doubt whether something he said really happened or not, use google to get more information. It’s the internet era now, and any information in the world is available at your fingertip.

I never knew anything about the massacre on 6 October 1976 because this event was not taught in school. After I read chapter 12 of TKNS, I wonder whether it was true that the Monarchy was behind such a cruel massacre. Thus I googled the information. Then there were many academic articles about the events, as well as photographs to serve as “real evidence” of what happened on that day. Do not ask someone to confirm what they said; do it yourself. Only when you seek the information you want yourself then you will really know what happened. And you will never forget it, because you are the one who search for it yourself.

Good luck in finding more information. We are lucky to live in an era where internet is available. Use it to benefit 🙂

About the Author

Dr Nicholas Farrelly is the co-founder of New Mandala. A graduate of the Australian National University and the University of Oxford, over the past 20 years he has undertaken research in Thailand, Myanmar, Bangladesh, China and India. Nicholas is Associate Dean of the College of Asia and the Pacific at the Australian National University, where he also led the ANU Myanmar Research Centre from 2015 to 2017.